mcp_opendaw_delete_audio_unit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotation already indicates destructiveHint: true, so the description does not need to reiterate destructiveness. It adds valuable context: proper cleanup of all connected boxes and the constraint that index 0 cannot be deleted. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences plus a parameter note. It is front-loaded with the action and key constraints, with zero wasted words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the function, safety constraint, and cleanup behavior. An output schema exists, so not describing the return value is acceptable. Minor gap: could mention that all child elements are recursively deleted, but the phrase 'all its tracks, effects, and sends' addresses this.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema only specifies unit_index as an integer with no description. The description adds critical meaning: the unit index must be >= 1 because index 0 is the master and cannot be deleted. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it deletes an entire audio unit with all its tracks, effects, and sends. It also specifies that the primary output AU (index 0) cannot be deleted, which distinguishes it from other delete tools like delete_track that operate on individual tracks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions using ProjectApi.deleteAudioUnit() for proper cleanup and notes that index 0 is forbidden. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like delete_track or remove_effect, leaving the agent to infer when to use this versus other deletion tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.